User talk:Frank/Archive 8
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Frank. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 |
Recent deletion
Hi Frank, thanks for deleting that, there is also another copy, here please have a look at the note I left at AN here . Off2riorob (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Responded at AN. Frank | talk 14:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Can you tell me why it was removed to my user page, and then someone still delete it before I can do anything ? I haven't even got a chance to say hold it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronald2010 (talk • contribs) 14:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
I understand your reason for deleting Silviu Ionescu was because of BLP. Can you explain to me how is the BLP poicy apply on this [[1]] ? 121.7.53.23 (talk) 09:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am not sure I understand the question. WP:BLP establishes how we treat the biographical articles of living people; the idea is that Wikipedia is not here to defame anyone. If they are notable for something then we can include them here. If you can establish that Ionescu is actually notable, and write a balanced article about him, then there's no reason the article can't exist. But the one that had been previously written was not balanced, and I'm not sure he's notable to start with. Frank | talk 11:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Michael Fay is a living person. He was sentenced to caning for the crime he committed in Singapore. Is he notable ? Well, he is definitely not a hero, nor a millionaire. He is just a foreigner committed a crime in Singapore and was punished. The news then had created a big wave in Singapore and in USA. He is therefore notable in that sense. From this point of view, Silviu Ionescu is similar. He is a foreigner, a Romanian, committed (more) crime (than Michael Fay) in Singapore. It is found in an open Coroner's Inquiry that he is responsible for the accidents. Lots of news report and online discussion about him in Singapore and Romania.
Mind you, this is not DEFRAME nor ATTACK (which I really disagree with yours and the others' earlier comments that my deleted write up on Silviu Ionescu was to deframe him). I am deframing him if the Court has not ruled. That means, I do not solid evidence to say he committed the crimes, and he can sue me. But, this case, the Court has ruled. It is a PROVEN CASE now. Not an opinion, not a speculation. If you noted, I wrote the article for Wikipedia AFTER the Court has given the verdict (although I started developing the draft copy in my user space nearing the date of Court's verdict). This is the care that I taken to ensure that the facts are written, (and to reply to the other person who said my article was a copy of the news, yes it is because it is based on the same facts as reported, so that is why, and I quoted the sources too) some kind of fair treatment for him. I'll let you know that there are many members of the Facebook group will support me is saying this and I am inviting them to watch this discussion now.
Did the current Wikipedia write up on Michael Fay show his other good ? or just mainly talk about what he did in Singapore ? Nope. Michael Fay maybe a celebrity by now, and maybe a founder of a very successful IT company now, or a CEO or a Fortune 500 company now. But the Wikipedia article currently shows his crime committed in Singapore. That is going to be the same for Silviu Ionescu. He maybe a member of the secret police in his country, killing more people than we can ever imagine. But his two reckless accident in Singapore kill one, injured two. That is enough to make him 'infamous'.
I hope I have elaborated enough to justify the article, by citing a current article of Micheal Fay, which is also one single incident. So my question to you is, how is the BLP policy applied here ? Thank you.
121.7.53.23 (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I support you, Ronald (or are you Jackie ?). 203.78.9.150 (talk) 05:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you ! And Daniel (116.14.58.58 8 Apr 3:52 UTC) also. Yes, Ronald2010 is also Jackie. 121.7.15.234 (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Frank, please do reply on the above mentioned with full answer. Thanks & best regards, from Daniel on 08-April-2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.58.58 (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I am not saying this article cannot exist - merely that, as it was written, it cannot remain. If you disagree, you are free to go to WP:DRV, or perhaps to recreate it in your user space (you'll have to log in to do that). There's no automatic reason an article on the man couldn't exist; it would take effort to make it comply with policies, but all articles must do so.
- The article that was deleted was a very detailed re-telling of the accusations and court findings against an individual; the Michael P. Fay article, while nowhere near a shining example of Wikipedia's best work, at least makes a serious effort at writing about his life as a whole and at describing why the idea of a foreigner being caned is notable. A hit-and-run drunken driving conviction seems far less notable, even when it involves a foreign diplomat. (Still, the existence of another article is rarely a sufficient (or even good) reason to defend the non-deletion of an article; see WP:OSE.) Frank | talk 08:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Frank, Silviu Ionescu's case a most recent example of abuse of [| diplomatic immunity]. I assure you that it is notable. It is not less serious than Michael Fay's case. I hope you also see what was written by another user Zhanzhao in [| Why is the case not Notable ? ]. It is just that I do not have the CV of Silviu Ionescu. If you look at the history of editing for the deleted article, you'd find that after I wrote, I go and find out his wife's name and put it in, try to make it a complete record of him. If you'd convince the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Romania to give me his Personal File, I'd extract his career hisotry before the accident and put it up. BUT THEN - why is his other parts of his working life NOTABLE ? As a diplomat, did he make big contribution to Romania ? I don't think so, before he became drunk and run down 3 person, I don't think what he did is NOTABLE at all. So what it is now ? Is Wikipedia asking me to 'make his life story complete' just to satisfy one policy, but disregarding another policy ?
- Since you have deleted my original article, can you restore it and put up for Deletion Review ? [add by me- What I meant is all these discussion here, and on JzG's talk page, maybe should be moved to Deletion Review as part of the discussion ? I am not an admin here so I am not sure if this should be done. Your call.] However, if you tell me the deletion is non-recoverable, then I will use my back up copy to re-create [add by me - because I don't want to be accused of putting up the same deleted page whereby I would be banned]. Ronald2010 (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I support you Jackie !! You are doing the right thing. It's the truth and you have all the facts all correct. You are not doing it to spread bad news or give somebody a bad name. It's to create awareness to all people in the world about the stupidity and the ignorance of people who are honored with diplomatic immunity and abused it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.12.238 (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
(PS: I am copying this from another talk page as its a similar arguement I am making)
Hi Frank,
Just to question the level of notability of the case: How exactly would you quantify notability?
I.e. I look at another article I used to touch on [Meredith Kercher]. Both are notable for only one single specific incident (A hit-and-run vs a murder), and both involved a few countries (The hit and run involved a Romanian who hit a Malaysian working in Singapore, the murder case similarly crossed international boundaries due to the nationalities of the victim and prosecuted).
Do a search on "Silviu Ionescu" compared to "Meredith Kercher" on Google (web) and Google (news), a comparison of both searches show more results and entries for "Silviu Ionescu" than "Meredith Kercher". It might not have triggeredas much eyeball in the States, but the European and Asian news agencies are covering this quite aggressively.
The fact that in the case of Ionescu, it actually triggered diplomatic responses and action from the countries involved is possibly a contributing factor., but that should not take anything away from it.
So back to the test for Notability:
- From the Google news result, the test for significant coverage is passed.
- Again from the Google news results (which quotes multiple news sources), and also official responses from both foreign offices, the test reliability is passed. Ditto for the test for sources.
It is inevitable that the article will veer close to BLP issues, considering that the article is after all about a person who rose to notoriety because of the hit-and-run. The best we can do is craft an article that as reliable and well documented as possible, creating an article based on info as is, without biased writing. I do hope the article goes up soon (Or at least a skeleton of it so that other editors can help tidy it up. The case could have indirect repercussions that would eventually tie in with other articles, and not just from the Diplomatic Immunity angle (I.e. there is talk that during the coming General Elections in Singapore, this issue could be used as a weapon by the opposition parties to question the effectiveness of the existing government who allegedly over-protect Ionescu and let him leave the country before the investigation was over, on top of other foreign affairs issues); so it is inevitable that the incident is definitely going to resurface in one form/article or another. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Zhanzhao (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, on the point of deciding what is notable, I have my view after this episode. I think an admin not in the same geographical area would not be qualify to decide what is notable or not. In this case, only Singaporean can tell you Silviu Ionescu is now notable because of what he just did. Singaporean can also tell you that Micahel Fay is notable. When Zhanzhao give the example of Meredith Kercher above, I only get to know it now, although it is a widely covered event in UK and Italy. So, I hope the regular Wikipedia administrators take note of this. If cannot decide based on your own knowlege. The world is too big. And Singapore is not part of China...if anyone still don't know. 121.7.15.234 (talk) 03:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Your Decision ?
FRANK, I AM SUPPORTING THIS ISSUE, AN INTERNATIONAL WARRANT OF ARREST HAS ALREADY OUT, AND ALL ARE TURE FACTS .. SO ALL THESE RELATED MATTERS SHOULD BE AVALIABLE HERE .. CORRECT ??? WRITTEN BY DANIEL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.14.58.58 (talk) 09:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Frank,
Today, Singapore MFA met with the Romanian Ambassador. Singapore authorities issued a Warrant of Arrest for Silviu Ionescu. At the same time interpol issued a [[ http://www.interpol.int/Public/Wanted/Default.asp%7C Red ]] [| Notice ] for him as well.
I believe I have presented my case to you that this is not an attack, and there is sufficient international interest in this matter, and therefore notability. If you are satisfied with all these explanation, please restore the page.
Before listing a review request, please attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision) as this could resolve the matter faster. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision. If things don't work out, please note in the DRV listing that you first tried discussing the matter with the admin who deleted the page.
Otherwise, I would appreciate that you let me know that things still don't work out with you, so that I can proceed with DRV.
Ronald2010 (talk) 10:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Ronald - really the best thing to do is to create a more balanced, unbiased version in your userspace and allow others to review it. I really can't restore the version that was deleted because it was an attack page regardless of whether the man is now wanted by Interpol. But again - as I've said all along - it's not that there can't be an article on the man, only that the article as it was written doesn't belong. I'm not saying I think he's notable according to our policies - that's a different issue - but the article as it was deleted was inappropriate. If you create a more balanced, less inflammatory article in your user space, that will be a good first step.
- Also, I understand and appreciate that you're following the procedures listed at DRV by contacting me first. That's the right way to go according to community consensus. I want you to realize, though, that whether or not the article should exist is not up to me or to any one person...and again, I'm not saying it shouldn't exist; only that it doesn't meet policy as it was written. If you are seeking permission and action from me to restore it, you may wind up with the mistaken impression that I'm saying "the article is OK". That wouldn't be true in this case.
- So, really the best way to proceed is not DRV (at which I am fairly confident but not 100% sure the deletion would be upheld), but simply to create a toned-down version that is more balanced and unbaised. DRV discussions usually take a week and if it turned out that the deletion was upheld, you'd be no closer to having an article. If you create a new version and solicit others to help, you'll have a better chance of getting an article written. Also, if others give an opinion as to whether or not it belongs, rather than you relying on and possibly trying to change the opinion of one or two admins, you'll develop a better sense of how the community works. Ultimately, that is better for you and the project, because I am really just one person around here.
- I would also suggest consulting WP:FIRST, WP:AFC, and WP:INCUBATE. These will be helpful in gauging community consensus and procedure. Frank | talk 12:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Fine (I can see that you still view it as an attack, and not fully convinced that by the two hit-and-run accident he became infamously notable), and I respect your suggestion (to try to make it more blanaced, although I really don't know how, but no harm give it a try) so, may I request that an admin restore that article to my user space ? Because any attempt by me to recreate a previously deleted article may get me banned. You know, Singaporean very kiasu and kiasi, always follow the rule. Thank you ! Ronald2010 (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I still think it's better to start from scratch. I believe that you have all the text and references available to you since you created the article multiple times. Also, if you start at WP:AFC or WP:INCUBATE, you can get some perspective from other people. And, as a middle ground, perhaps I could restore all the references you collected, and allow you to build from those references. That way the attack article will not be visible in history, which is what I'm trying to avoid. Frank | talk 13:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- It still looks like WP:BLP1E to me. Righteous anger is a terrible reason for starting an article. Incidentally: Warning: The person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- On, that, the case has already gone through a polices investigation and a separate coroner's inquiry (this is not an autopsy, its a special session which called up 54 witnesses including the diplomat's driver (whom Romania waived diplomatic immunity to allow him to testify) and the carmaker representatives (since Ionescu claimed the car was stolen, implying that the alleged thief had bypassed the car's installed anti-theft devices) at the country of the accident, the result of which has him found guilty, and following that a Interpol Red Alert has been issued for his arrest[2]. Ionescu was requested to attend the coroner's inquiry to defend himself, but he ignored it. The only investigation that hasn't concluded is a separate investigation on the Romanian government's part, since a quirk of Diplomatic immunity[3] allows Ionescu only to be tried at his home country. Note that the Romanian investigators will only have the evidence given by the Singapore investigators to work with anyway [4]. Also Note that there is more to this that just a simple hit-and-run, and that Ionescu also claimed that he is being set-up b y the Singapore and Romanian Government[5].....though that would make his choice of fleaing to Romania strange indeed.
- Even if this article WAS started by righteous anger, fellow wikipedians should be given a chance to turn it into something informative and in the spirit of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhanzhao (talk • contribs) 00:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- It still looks like WP:BLP1E to me. Righteous anger is a terrible reason for starting an article. Incidentally: Warning: The person should be considered innocent until proven guilty. Guy (Help!) 15:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- I still think it's better to start from scratch. I believe that you have all the text and references available to you since you created the article multiple times. Also, if you start at WP:AFC or WP:INCUBATE, you can get some perspective from other people. And, as a middle ground, perhaps I could restore all the references you collected, and allow you to build from those references. That way the attack article will not be visible in history, which is what I'm trying to avoid. Frank | talk 13:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Some valid points; I still say that WP:FIRST, WP:AFC, and WP:INCUBATE are key. Frank | talk 00:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think any one will have issues with that (rgd WP:FIRST, WP:AFC, and WP:INCUBATE) . But do restore the references as you offered beforehand; I can imagine that its a chore to collect the different references, and in that sense Ronald2010 has been better than some editors I have seen in the past who have created or edited huge amounts of content without referencing/sourcing. The references/sources he chose may inherently be strong in their language, which influenced the tone of his own attempt at the article, so at least other editors can suggest more neutral sources. This is just a guess, as I have not seen either the deleted article nor the reference he used.... which makes it difficult to pass comments on the tone/content and suggestions on correction. Again, Thanks in advance if you can restore the references at least, cheers! Zhanzhao (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Guy, Silviu Ionescu IS (if i can use a font 100 size, for this word, I will) proven to be the person behind the wheel for the two accidents. A COURT IN SINGAPORE HAS GIVEN THAT VERDICT. Fair chance has been given for him to come and attend the court and present his version of the story. BUT HE REFUSED ! So Guy, if you ARE NOT ABLE to follow this, how are you in the position to decide ? Is there a Wikipedia procedure to raise question on the credibility of an admin ? Ronald2010 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- Frank, I have done [| AFC]. I am not sure how this will go, but I am creating a short summary first. Should I add the details in ? Or shall I wait for other Wikipedians to comment ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.15.234 (talk) 05:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- add in my signature 121.7.15.234 (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- add in my signature Ronald2010 (talk) 05:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to be absolutely clear, whether or not he is guilty is immaterial. The problem is that no substantial reliable independent biographical sources have been presented, all you've done is present an unfolding news story. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. That's the issue here. You want to insert a biography into an encyclopaedia based on news stories about an event. Wikinews does news stories, we do biographies of people whose overall life has been covered in sufficient depth that we can discuss it without giving undue weight to a single event. I'm sorry you are having such difficulty understanding this. Guy (Help!) 18:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
- In that case, would it help if the article was turned into an article about the Diplomatic Immunity Incident issue rather than the person itself? This has been done before with Murder_of_Shaariibuugiin_Altantuyaa which was originally named only Shaariibuugiin Altantuyaa (That article used to be longer, but some editor has been trying to whitewash the case and removing content there, but I digress). In both cases, the person is notable only for the incident. And in both cases, the incident almost triggered cross-country relations fall out. Though it is different in the case on Ionescu since it instead involved 3 countries AND also a Interpol Red Alert on his arrest.
- The fact that 2 separate investigations have already been completed showing guilt and an international arrest warrant already provides closure to the case to an extent. Its like some articles of serial murders where the killer was never caught and brought to trial. There is enough content to close the article.Zhanzhao (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Yesterday evening, I went to AFC chatroom and chat with two very helpful Wikipedians, in total for more than an hour. One of them told me that, if I add | current article sufficient background of Silviu Ionescu, the article is definitely publishible. Since yesterday, I have got the help of a Romanian and found | a brief CV of Silviu Ionescu; and I am about to add it in.
And yet, Guy, you just closed it. Your action led me to think that you will everything to kill this article. Please explain your action. If you carry on like this, I will lodge a very strong complaint against you. Ronald2010 (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
CSD
thanks for the message but it looks like someone else decided not to wait. NtheP (talk) 17:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- (Re: Crouch-DeVries) You're right, but I disagree with that deletion and said so. Frank | talk 17:05, 6 April 2010
I am trying to put the character bio in my own words. You just deleted a half-hours' work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hotspur23 (talk • contribs)
- It was a copy-paste WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation. Frank | talk 11:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
"This Stuff is Not Encyclopedic at All"
This is an example of what is WRONG with Wikipedia. You deleted this material by claiming "this stuff is not encyclopedic at all":
It should be noted that some cases come from nations (such as the United Kingdom) with compulsory birth registration and a central government register of documents; these cases are more than 90% likely to be eventually verified.[citation needed][original research?] Others come from nations that, historically, have had few or no verified cases, and thus one can infer that their likelihood of verification will be small (less than 10%).[citation needed][original research?] Since cases of persons just turning 110 are often less likely to be processed, the reader can infer that cases nearer the top of the list are less likely to be verified.[original research?] For example, if someone is now listed as age 112, the case had more than two years to produce sufficient evidence of age. In addition, studies have shown that the validation rate for cases decreases, the higher the age claimed (in part because the true cases, if younger than the false/exaggerated claims, will be more likely to die first).[citation needed] Thus, this list can be viewed, inferentially, as a sliding scale of believability.[original research?]
Yet I am offering my expertise in this area. In fact, I have material soon to be published that will show this to be true. I suppose the world can wait until it reaches journal publication. That does NOT mean, however, that this is not encyclopedic. It should be obvious, really, that the higher the age claimed, the less likely it is to be true. Why? Let's consider a hypothetical situation.
We have 30 people claiming to be 110. Of these, 20 are 110; 7 are 109; 2 are 100 and one is 90 years old. Who is most-likely to die first? If the death rate at 110 is 50% and at 90 or 100 it is closer to 25-30%, and we go one year later, it statistically more likely that some of the real 110-year-olds died first.
Suppose, one year later, of the 30 people, we now have 20. Of these, one is 91, 2 are 101, and four are 110. 13 are 111. The number of "real" people aged 111 is now 65%, down from 67% a year earlier.
Eventually, the number of real people drop rapidly. Let's say five year later, we now have three people left: all the 111-year-olds have died; the three remaining are 115 (but claiming 116); 106 (but claiming 116); and 96 (but claiming 116). By this point, none of the claims are true (validation rate 0%), although one is close to being true.
Even in the USA, more than 99% of claims to age 116+ are false...imagine how bad the records from places like India are, where "136" year-olds turn out to be 100 years old (as actually happened).
Ryoung122 18:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
- I assume you are referring to this edit and edit summary. I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding regarding that comment in specific and how Wikipedia works in general. I am not saying that what is written is incorrect; what I'm saying is that when there are seven tags on a single paragraph, it is by definition not encyclopedic. I can add to those tags: It should be noted is WP:WEASEL wording; one can infer and the reader can infer are most certainly not encyclopedic wording (rather, they sound like academic papers and personal opinion); and the phrase studies have shown cries out for a {{fact}} tag.
- You understand verifiability in general, and I believe more specifically that you understand WP:V, which is one of Wikipedia's core policies. If you find that to be something WRONG with Wikipedia, there's not a whole lot I can personally do about it; such a feeling runs counter to how Wikipedia works and is unlikely to get much traction. That you are a recognized expert in your field is not in question; neither is it relevant. The information must be verifiable with appropriate citations from reliable sources. Frank | talk 21:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Good to see you on Silviu Ionescu
Looking much better :) avs5221 (talk) 14:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Wisconsin towns versus communities
I notice that you did a good faith redirect for Mount Morris (community), Wisconsin to the town with the same name. You have fallen for the common misperception. In Wisconsin, a town is a different government unit that is not a community. Please review Political_subdivisions_of_Wisconsin#Town for background. Towns frequently were named after an unincorporated community (or municipality) in the town. This misperception "problem" has been explained and discussed many times at the WikiProject, 2 examples: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wisconsin/Archive_4#Proposed_merger_of_articles:Town.26City_of_Madison.26Janesville., Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wisconsin/Archive_4#Sun_Prairie_city_and_town_articles. I have undone the redirect. This article is about the community within the town. Royalbroil 03:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- That was a bit careless on my part; thanks for your note. Frank | talk 12:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
If you had read the original article completely, you might have noticed that it was really nothing more than a wedding announcement. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly read it all; perhaps "noticed it was really nothing more than" is an interpretation and not an absolute. Nevertheless, it's not a completely unreasonable interpretation...I just didn't think it falls so obviously under A7. Still, as I indicated on the deleting admin's talk page, I went ahead and deleted Mrs. Janack's Class and Mrs. Janack's 4th Grade moments later, so...maybe I shoulda just kept my fingers quiet after all. Frank | talk 17:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- The content was: it is a mixture of the dutch surname of Devries. Crouch comes from a line of North Zulchians. Crouch has been in North Zulch for over 100 years DeVries arrived six years ago The mixtures of these names will occur next year in June. Frank | talk 14:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Height
Hi Frank! Thanks for your note regarding the vandalism of Dorothy Height's page; it was sickening to find it on the day of her funeral, an event so moving that when I saw it on C-Span video, I was enthusiastic about learning more of the life of this amazing woman. It angered me to see such juvenile and destructive behavior here.
I especially appreciate that you pointed out when the vandalism occurred, because as a newbie here, I find it extremely confusing to read the edit history pages. I had poked around there for a while, and couldn't figure it out.
The person responsible for the vandalism, as you know, was only identified by IP address (as I am, too -- reading about setting up an account has me bogged down in regard to understanding security measures here, how to verify identity, etc. -- but I plan to get a "real" account asap). When I clicked on that person's IP address link, I discovered that in March of this year, that IP address was warned that ONE more instance of vandalism (for which the Dorothy Height hijinks counts, yes?) would result in that person's IP being banned.
Would I need to do something to report elsewhere, so that vandal will be banned, or is that something you can do? If it can be explained to me, I'd be happy to do it -- as one small way to show gratitude for the life of Dr. Height and all she has done for civil rights.
Thanks again for your note, and thanks in advance for any further response from you! It's nice to know there are "white hats" here helping to educate newbies like me about the vandals.
- Since an IP address may well be shared by different people over time, generally such a block would not occur. Blocks are preventative, not punitive, and vandalism edits weeks or months apart, while unfortunate, are generally overlooked. It really depends on the situation. Take a look at WP:BLOCK and let me know if you have any questions.
- On the subject of an account, there's no reason to "verify identity". Just create an account and use that one exclusively for your edits. Welcome to Wikipedia! Frank | talk 03:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
People aged 85 and over
I understand your concern but rest assured that I and hopefully others would ensure that only notable people were included on the list, so I would ask you to reconsider your choice to nominate the page for deletion. Have a good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwhite148 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 30 April 2010
- The discussion will continue for about a week; you can count on others expressing an opinion as well. Mine is only one. Frank | talk 15:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Re:Removal of tag
Thanks! I was a little puzzled when I saw the tag read in relation to a living person when Crimble died 137 years ago! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Changes to Cancún article
Please see my comments on my talk page about the item you undid. I think that before removing easily verifiable information for lack of citation, it would be better to look it up and enter the citation. I also don't think that erroneous information should be inserted into the article. It's really easy for people to make technical changes; considerably more difficult to actually improve the article. I could go through it and enter citations for every point where required, as well as correct the errors that have crept into it. I gave up editing this article quite a while ago because I really don't like wasting my time defending it from what I very frankly consider a form of vandalism -- technically correct in terms of Wikipedia policy, perhaps, but detrimental to overall quality. I hope that you will take these remarks in the spirit of helpfulness with which they are offered. Jules Siegel (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- If I may, Frank was right in removing the information. Facts shouldn't be added to an article without a source, especially statistics as specific as the ones you added. Adding information and a "citation needed" tag at the same time shouldn't happen, if you have the stats in a reliable source, please provide it. Otherwise, don't ask other editors to find your sources for you. It's best to leave out what can't be reliably sourced, especially when it's not crucial information. Dayewalker (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dayewalker. I would add that summary of the edit I undid read (in part) The information is accurate, useful and can be easily verified by consulting the Internet. My response was Then let's get the citation(s) in the article. I thought that was pretty self-explanatory. However, your note above (Jules) indicates you have your own idea of how Wikipedia works (or should work). For example, you say you "could go through it and enter citations for every point where required, as well as correct the errors that have crept into it." Well, to that I say, "Thanks!". If you need help with that, let me know. However, when another editor removes information that appears to have been uncited in the article with a tag for 9 months, your edit adding it back in with the summary above is quite unhelpful to the article. I'm sorry if you feel like Wikipedia should work differently, but this is how it actually works and how policies exist. You bemoan that the article is "technically correct...perhaps" but again - the policies exist for a reason, and the "edit" tab - with which you are certainly familiar - also exists for a reason. Frank | talk 05:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Notice of Discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard regarding the Talk:Barack Obama page. The thread is Talk:Barack Obama#Citizenship conspiracy theories.The discussion is about the topic of the recent Citizenship conspiracy theories discussion. Thank you.
P.S. You are mentioned once in relation to a prior incident, and as such I am required to notify you. --Jzyehoshua (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Frank | talk 12:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Excellent stalking
|
The WikiJaguar Award for Excellence | |
| For your recent assistance responding to a query on my talk page (answering it far better than I probably would have), I award you the WikiJaguar Award for Excellence in talk page stalking efforts. –xenotalk 12:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC) |
- Aww, shucks. Thanks :-) Frank | talk 13:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
List of The Sopranos characters
Thank you - for saving someone drowning. With my coding skills I should never leave the sandbox. Eudemis (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I'd like to clean up List of The Sopranos characters...if only I had the time... Frank | talk 23:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Senator Robert Byrd
I removed the recent death template in compliance with guidelines. If you plan on adding it again, please explain your rationale. Thank you.Mk5384 (talk) 02:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- He died 4 days ago and is still receiving plenty of edits. Frank | talk 02:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Page view statistics for June and July help tell the story. The guideline states "...subject to removal after 7 days...", which haven't elapsed. I understand the guideline also says that it should be used rarely and for international figures...Byrd qualifies, and we slap that tag on the pages of far less well-known people. Frank | talk 02:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- While strict adherence to the guideline allows for its removal, there was no compelling indication for, and certainly no requirement of its removal. Given that Byrd fits the qualifications for having the template in the first place and it was not yet seven days since his passing, and given that the events surrounding his lying in state and funeral arrangements (much less higher editorial traffic at the article in general) were still unfolding, it seems not unreasonable to restore the template to remain in place throughout that period. It seems this is the sort of situation where the onus is on the person going against the judgement of those involved at the article to explain rationale for why they feel template removal must stand prior to a funeral, and not on those monitoring and/or working at the article to explain why they find it helpful and appropriate to remain. Abrazame (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Page view statistics for June and July help tell the story. The guideline states "...subject to removal after 7 days...", which haven't elapsed. I understand the guideline also says that it should be used rarely and for international figures...Byrd qualifies, and we slap that tag on the pages of far less well-known people. Frank | talk 02:17, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- It also states, "if the article is receiving 100 or more edits per day, which it is not." Mk5384 (talk) 07:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit has been removed three times by two editors, and you've been told by three editors that your interpretation doesn't fit with theirs. Please attempt to gain consensus for any further removal of the {{recentdeath}} template from Robert Byrd. It seems the consensus is currently against such removal. I think the key here is to understand that there's no specific rule about use of this template. The guideline is just that - a guideline. This is a pretty high-profile article; if you look through the recent deaths page you'll be hard pressed to find anyone nearly as high-profile as Byrd who has died recently. And, there are articles in 26 other wikis for him, which clearly speaks to the international nature of interest in his life. Another day or two with the template won't hurt anything, and seems totally appropriate for an article that is getting 20,000 hits per day - 1/3 more than Barack Obama, the 87th-most popular article according to its history stats. Frank | talk 12:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry "my interpretation" doesn't fit with theirs. How exactly would you have me "interpret" 100 edits a day?Mk5384 (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be to do two things:
- Understand that "(perhaps a hundred or more)" - listed parenthetically as it is - hold less weight than it might if it were directly in the text (not parenthetically) and without the word "perhaps". That construct is adding an interpretation to "many editors" - the phrase which it directly follows.
- Examine how the template is actually used in practice. It may well have been that in the past, consensus was to have 100 editors on a page in a day in order to qualify for that template...in reality, today, it is used on far less busy pages than that.
- Essentially, I think the interpretation can and should take into account more than just five words on the page and focus on the big picture. I can say this for sure: editors who insist on looking at and following the exact wording of policies (and this is just a template, not even a policy) often find their time on Wikipedia to be very difficult. Frank | talk 02:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- So if I follow guidelines, but a "consensus" of 2 other users want it their way, I have somehow commited some offence? Shocking. And in case you haven't noticed, there are admins who would block me for blowing my nose here. You admins are quite fond of that block button, and the amazing powers it bestows upon you.Mk5384 (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's not how consensus works, and I'm sure you're aware of that. Furthermore, your claim of two other users wanting "their way" holds no water, as I am describing common community behavior in using the {{recentdeath}} template, not the wishes of only two users (and actually three disagreed with you in this instance anyway). As for admin behavior, I would say this: if you have a problem with the behavior of an admin, there are channels for dealing with that. However, if you notice a great number of other users (admin and otherwise) have a problem with your behavior, you probably ought to pay attention. I had no notice of you until you inappropriately removed the template from Robert Byrd and then called me to task. I have no "fondness" for the block button, as I think I've demonstrated throughout my tenure as an admin (which, I might add, predates your account creation on this site by a year and a half). Does that grant me "amazing powers"? Of course not. Does it tend to indicate I have a pretty firm grasp on how things work around here? Definitely. Frank | talk 18:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, except for the fact that I didn't innaprporiately remove it.Mk5384 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is by no means an established fact; I explained why it was inappropriate both above and on your talk page, and others did so here and in edit summaries on Robert Byrd. (I am assuming you don't mean that someone else did it with your account, which would be, in itself, a blockable offense.) You clearly have bigger fish to fry; I won't be offended in the least if you consider this discussion concluded and move on to other activities. Frank | talk 21:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'll bet you wouldn't. I'm sure you can see just how concerned I am with that ridiculous RfC. I'm still curious as to what "circumstances surrounding (Senator Byrd's) death" you thought would be changing 5 days after his passing.Mk5384 (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is by no means an established fact; I explained why it was inappropriate both above and on your talk page, and others did so here and in edit summaries on Robert Byrd. (I am assuming you don't mean that someone else did it with your account, which would be, in itself, a blockable offense.) You clearly have bigger fish to fry; I won't be offended in the least if you consider this discussion concluded and move on to other activities. Frank | talk 21:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's all well and good, except for the fact that I didn't innaprporiately remove it.Mk5384 (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- That's not how consensus works, and I'm sure you're aware of that. Furthermore, your claim of two other users wanting "their way" holds no water, as I am describing common community behavior in using the {{recentdeath}} template, not the wishes of only two users (and actually three disagreed with you in this instance anyway). As for admin behavior, I would say this: if you have a problem with the behavior of an admin, there are channels for dealing with that. However, if you notice a great number of other users (admin and otherwise) have a problem with your behavior, you probably ought to pay attention. I had no notice of you until you inappropriately removed the template from Robert Byrd and then called me to task. I have no "fondness" for the block button, as I think I've demonstrated throughout my tenure as an admin (which, I might add, predates your account creation on this site by a year and a half). Does that grant me "amazing powers"? Of course not. Does it tend to indicate I have a pretty firm grasp on how things work around here? Definitely. Frank | talk 18:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- So if I follow guidelines, but a "consensus" of 2 other users want it their way, I have somehow commited some offence? Shocking. And in case you haven't noticed, there are admins who would block me for blowing my nose here. You admins are quite fond of that block button, and the amazing powers it bestows upon you.Mk5384 (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- My suggestion would be to do two things:
- Whilst your comments at ANI said nothing for, or against me, I can tell you're one of the good ones. My compliments.Mk5384 (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is clearly complimentary, and deserves thanks, which I offer sincerely. Regarding AN/I and the RfC, I remain on the sidelines, and offer this bit of unsolicited advice I've
learnedbeen repeatedly shown in life: it's not the best possible result but rather the best result possible. I can remember an event more than 20 years past that first demonstrated (well, crystallized) this to me. The difference is subtle but I can see that you will be able to work it out, even if you don't agree. Wikipedia is, like most endeavors in life, comprised of human beings. Frank | talk 01:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)- You're largely right. It's frustrating for someone who cares about this project as much as I do to have to deal with as much nonsense as I have. I've been rereading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. It helps. As far as the Robert Byrd thing, I was probably viewing it in a somewhat skewed manner, related to other stresses here. You were largely right on that one too. My apologies.Mk5384 (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- The "nonsense" you refer to (without making any comment on anything in particular) is most likely affected by the fact that neither you nor they realize that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Obviously, that's not my original thought; the point is: nobody knows how much you care about this project, nor do they consider what they are saying to you to be nonsense. The reality likely lies between the two extremes; I would say your time here will be smoothed by stepping back a little and observing. Remember: most of us have two ears and one mouth. This is still the Internet, but it probably helps to apply that observation. Most people would not say the things they type around here. Perhaps not paying so much attention to things people wouldn't say in person is a good idea all around. Frank | talk 13:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm trying to work on that.Mk5384 (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
- The "nonsense" you refer to (without making any comment on anything in particular) is most likely affected by the fact that neither you nor they realize that on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Obviously, that's not my original thought; the point is: nobody knows how much you care about this project, nor do they consider what they are saying to you to be nonsense. The reality likely lies between the two extremes; I would say your time here will be smoothed by stepping back a little and observing. Remember: most of us have two ears and one mouth. This is still the Internet, but it probably helps to apply that observation. Most people would not say the things they type around here. Perhaps not paying so much attention to things people wouldn't say in person is a good idea all around. Frank | talk 13:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
- You're largely right. It's frustrating for someone who cares about this project as much as I do to have to deal with as much nonsense as I have. I've been rereading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius. It helps. As far as the Robert Byrd thing, I was probably viewing it in a somewhat skewed manner, related to other stresses here. You were largely right on that one too. My apologies.Mk5384 (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
- That is clearly complimentary, and deserves thanks, which I offer sincerely. Regarding AN/I and the RfC, I remain on the sidelines, and offer this bit of unsolicited advice I've
RfA
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Connormah (talk | contribs) 15:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Notable cases of ALS list
Hi there Frank, check out the talk page on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis; unfortunately whenever there is a section for "notable cases" it quickly fills up with a lot of folks. Rather than try and establish thresholds for notability for having a disease we've been discussing other ways such as creating a new category for people affected by this disease. My original argument was that by far the two most notable cases, Stephen Hawking and Lou Gehrig, are well described and referenced in the intro. I don't think additional cases really add a lot to the disease story itself; there are other systems like that e.g. PatientsLikeMe.com or patients' own blogs / sites. Happy to discuss further, perhaps weigh in on the ALS talk page? Cheers, --PaulWicks (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused...I pruned the list by about half in an attempt to at least keep it manageable, and you're asking me to do...what? Frank | talk 08:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Edits on Robert Byrd
Hi Frank - I noticed that you recently undid the edit of an anonymous user on the article Robert Byrd in this edit. As far as I know, the edit was good to go - the editor fixed capitalization errors and corrected grammar to the American style. Because of this, I undid your edit (apologies for that; I know that it is often frowned upon to undo the edit of an administrator without confronting them first, but when I took a glance on your userpage prior to undoing the edit, I didn't realize that you were an administrator until now, since the only indication was a category). Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 02:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Or perhaps I was wrong - I guess the word "senator" should be capitalized when it is in combination with "United States", in the case of "United States Senator," or when it's used with a name, but not when it simply says "senator." I need to brush up on my capitalization skills. Apologies for that (another user since undid my edit). I guess the only thing right about the edit was the grammar fix. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your notes. The capitalization is no big deal; you've arrived at the right answer and that's the best answer for the article and the encyclopedia.
- Regarding the rest of your messages, I would like to say that the thought that it is frowned upon to undo an administrator's edit is a fallacy...however common it may be. We're all in this together, and the day anyone finds me saying "leave that edit alone because I made it and I'm an administrator" is the day that admin bit should be removed from my account. I do know a good bit about how things work around here and about how to write articles, but that doesn't mean I'm infallible or unapproachable. Part of being a veteran user around here - admin or otherwise - is understanding how to deal with other users.
- Again, thanks for contacting me, and then following up. That's the sort of collegiality we need around here. Frank | talk 12:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Age limit
Is there a minimum age and maximum age to be an editor on wikipedia?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, why? Frank | talk 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have to be over 15?Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, why? Frank | talk 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Because i'm only 12!!!!Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Your age is not important, but your editing behavior is. Please pay serious attention to the messages on your talk page. Frank | talk 16:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Because i'm only 12!!!!Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- No, why? Frank | talk 15:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Do you have to be over 15?Gobbleswoggler (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
RFPP
I rollbacked the edit.Just out of interest,do you think i am doing well for a 12 year old?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- I am interested in knowing which edit you think was an attack. As for your question, regardless of your age, I don't think you're listening especially well to the advice and requests you've gotten. For example, the message above should have been on your own talk page, not here. Frank | talk 19:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh yeh sorry!I'll remember now!Just out of interest,do you adopt other users?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW Frank, he thought this edit was vandalism. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Gobbleswoggler, I really don't have time to formally adopt a user, but I'm glad to help where I can. At the moment, I think you really need to focus on the things you've already been told, and there have been plenty of pieces of advice:
- Frank | talk 20:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
- Oh yeh sorry!I'll remember now!Just out of interest,do you adopt other users?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Pathare Prabhu Community's Ancient links
Thanks for taking care of that. I was replying to an email when Pathare messaged on my talk, so I didn't see it until after you had already moved it. Much appreciated. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:45, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- My pleasure. Frank | talk 08:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Requests for adminship
Regarding your recent message where you showed me the links for my requests for adminship,it has number 4 but not number 3.Did i put a wrong number for one of them and if so,can you fix them?,Gobbleswoggler (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
- When you created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 3 it was moved to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gobbleswoggler 2. Then you created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 4. Nobody renumbered that one before it was closed. There's no fix required. Frank | talk 14:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
IP is back
This IP blocked yesterday: [6]
Im pretty sure this is him: [7]
Both IPs have edited the same article and both are removing Palestine. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see how this constitutes "removing Palestine", since it changes Palestine to Palestinian territories, which states that such name is "one of a number of designations for these areas". There may be a dispute over wording, but this isn't vandalism. The block was for the offensive edit summary; since this one doesn't include it, you'll have to engage with the editor in question or show where there is a clear community consensus in favor of one term over others. Frank | talk 23:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
Those RfAs
I've had a look at those Gobbleswoggler RfAs now - thoughts at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Idea. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Led Zepp
Hi Frank - apologies if I was not making myself understood properly on that point about LZ and British Isles - I was actually trying to be funny, but I know my Brit humor doesn't always come transmit. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- No worries, mate. I was actually trying to make a serious point with some humor myself. I mean, here's a band that haven't recorded (notice the British form there: haven't) in what, 35 years?, and we can't settle on how to refer to the genre of music they are known for? This British Isles thing is far more deeply-rooted in both length of time and depth of animosity, so... Frank | talk 13:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the en-GB. Isn't that just a reflection of the fact that LZ were to some extent a cross-genre band? Can't see much of a problem with the current position of having multiple genres in the infobox, but I suppose there are bound to be blowhards who get all dogmatic about them being a metal band or whatever. As always it comes down to the perennial problem of wikipedia's basic structure, that of which expert to pick in cases where there are a bazillion sources to justify any given position. Articles should just give all the positions and then the battle moves on to what weight to give each. They went through these things on Brittanica too, but it was conducted through gentlemanly correspondence at a slow pace with a Supervising Subject Editor. I think we need some of the latter in wikiworld too. Admins are about behaviour, not content. We need trained, impartial, clever, well-balanced but above all knowledgeable content adjudicators. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Need is a tricky thing. It wouldn't surprise me if Jimbo's original concept hasn't quite been realized by what Wikipedia has become. So, the definition of what we need might well depend on defining what Wikipedia actually is...and I think the problem is that with so many editors, there is no single answer to that question. And yes, there are blowhards everywhere you look...Wikipedia neither breeds nor especially attracts them, in my view...they literally are everywhere. :-) As for the specific LZ question, well, it amuses me, is all. It seems almost a given that any artist that popular (and I really mean popular here, not notable) will have multiple tags attached to their genre. It's a natural consequence of the passage of time. Why some editors find it good sport or serious bizness to quarrel over it is beyond me. Frank | talk 14:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect it's the structure of Wikipedia that attracts and retains monomaniacs. It appears at first sight to be an open game where anything goes and you can impose your will. Some people receiving their first revert get angry. Not helped of course by (a) the lack of advertising that Wikipedia is not a place to just get your own way and (b) some of our less-than friendly "experienced editors" who specialise in abrupt put-downs when reverting casual toe-testing of the system. Some go on to become obsessives. Not to mention of course a whole new legion of people who, realising the built-in high ranking that Google bestows on the humblest Wiki-entry, are determined to game the system to promote their band/product/idea/company/person/racist view or whatever. Whatever else, we're going to need more admins! But I do think that the public message about Wikipedia is wrong. The idea abroad that it's all nonsense, that anyone can say anything, etc, has to be changed somehow. More rigor. More exclusion of, frankly, nutjobs with an axe to grind. Getting tougher with long-running editors who are acting aggressive or smart-arsed with newbies. More admins. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting views. The perceived need for more admins is one I actually actively disagree with, and have been doing so lately (and, alas, perennially) at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#799_active_admins. The public message is often wrong - I agree - but what I always tell people is that if you go to Wikipedia expecting to trust something, you get what you deserve. The example I use is the periodic table. If you're in a discussion with someone and you can't for the life of you remember the temporary name of that fancy new element you heard about (ununoctium), Wikipedia is a great and appropriate resource. If, however, you're in a lab working out equations for the use of the element which depend on precise and accurate knowledge of its properties, and you use Wikipedia as a source, you will absolutely get what you deserve when things go wrong. That isn't the fault of Wikipedia or its admins (or lack thereof). That's the fault of individuals who aren't taught how to discriminate regarding information. And that is a well-entrenched problem, at least here on this side of the pond, that won't be easily solved. Frank | talk 14:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- There are lots of good arguments pro and con there, but my perception as an ordinary keen editor is that when an admin is really needed to take a look at something that is harming the project, such as severe disruption, bad behaviour, etc, it can be difficult sometimes to get the time from an admin that's really needed. Browsing through the ANI for example, it looks to me like there is quite a lot of avoiding behaviour from admins reluctant to get involved in really addressing an issue, because, at least partly, they know it will be very time consuming. I agree any new admin needs to be good, so there needs to be good training and good filtering and perhaps there is a shortage underneath that stage of good people putting themselves forwards, or being invited and bad choices only too keen to push themselves forwards. Reading back through some of the history of the British-article-wars in Wikipedia, it also seems to me that admins as a group tend to be happy to "leave" a group of articles to an admin thought to have strong local knowledge. This may be true, but sometimes they have pretty strong local biases as well. I won't name names or recite histories, because it would be counter-productive, but I can see cases in the articles affecting these islands where an admin has gamed, appearing to stay aloof but at various points making sure the "combatants" stand to fight another day when serving one bias and equally making sure they get the chop when serving the other bias. A wider pool of admins would enable more than one to be "delegated" to a given dispute. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good points. I think, though, the perception that training is needed is somewhat overstated by the community. I really don't think there's much in the way of settling disputes and just helping things run smoothly around here that is unique to Wikipedia or even to an online community. And I definitely think that if you learn socialization online, you're way behind the 8-ball, so to speak. Maybe I think this because I'm "old-school". But I view anything I do here as secondary to who and what I am; I get the impression that some (especially admins and more especially admin-wannabes) view this as primary. Online is good. Online-only...not so much. Frank | talk 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, although given the probability that most people around here are lonely nerdy men (I exclude us, naturlich), maybe some basic social skills training might be a good idea. Seriously, how about Deputy Admins or something like that? Or Trial Admins? Do they get a trial already? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you are seriously unaware of WP:RFA, its talk page, WT:RFA, and WP:PERENNIAL, go have a romp through those busy corners of the project. Frank | talk 16:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Didn't know about the Perennial page, thanks for that - I'm still fairly new as an editor, although have been reading articles and talk pages for a long time. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you are seriously unaware of WP:RFA, its talk page, WT:RFA, and WP:PERENNIAL, go have a romp through those busy corners of the project. Frank | talk 16:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, although given the probability that most people around here are lonely nerdy men (I exclude us, naturlich), maybe some basic social skills training might be a good idea. Seriously, how about Deputy Admins or something like that? Or Trial Admins? Do they get a trial already? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Good points. I think, though, the perception that training is needed is somewhat overstated by the community. I really don't think there's much in the way of settling disputes and just helping things run smoothly around here that is unique to Wikipedia or even to an online community. And I definitely think that if you learn socialization online, you're way behind the 8-ball, so to speak. Maybe I think this because I'm "old-school". But I view anything I do here as secondary to who and what I am; I get the impression that some (especially admins and more especially admin-wannabes) view this as primary. Online is good. Online-only...not so much. Frank | talk 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- There are lots of good arguments pro and con there, but my perception as an ordinary keen editor is that when an admin is really needed to take a look at something that is harming the project, such as severe disruption, bad behaviour, etc, it can be difficult sometimes to get the time from an admin that's really needed. Browsing through the ANI for example, it looks to me like there is quite a lot of avoiding behaviour from admins reluctant to get involved in really addressing an issue, because, at least partly, they know it will be very time consuming. I agree any new admin needs to be good, so there needs to be good training and good filtering and perhaps there is a shortage underneath that stage of good people putting themselves forwards, or being invited and bad choices only too keen to push themselves forwards. Reading back through some of the history of the British-article-wars in Wikipedia, it also seems to me that admins as a group tend to be happy to "leave" a group of articles to an admin thought to have strong local knowledge. This may be true, but sometimes they have pretty strong local biases as well. I won't name names or recite histories, because it would be counter-productive, but I can see cases in the articles affecting these islands where an admin has gamed, appearing to stay aloof but at various points making sure the "combatants" stand to fight another day when serving one bias and equally making sure they get the chop when serving the other bias. A wider pool of admins would enable more than one to be "delegated" to a given dispute. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Interesting views. The perceived need for more admins is one I actually actively disagree with, and have been doing so lately (and, alas, perennially) at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#799_active_admins. The public message is often wrong - I agree - but what I always tell people is that if you go to Wikipedia expecting to trust something, you get what you deserve. The example I use is the periodic table. If you're in a discussion with someone and you can't for the life of you remember the temporary name of that fancy new element you heard about (ununoctium), Wikipedia is a great and appropriate resource. If, however, you're in a lab working out equations for the use of the element which depend on precise and accurate knowledge of its properties, and you use Wikipedia as a source, you will absolutely get what you deserve when things go wrong. That isn't the fault of Wikipedia or its admins (or lack thereof). That's the fault of individuals who aren't taught how to discriminate regarding information. And that is a well-entrenched problem, at least here on this side of the pond, that won't be easily solved. Frank | talk 14:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- I suspect it's the structure of Wikipedia that attracts and retains monomaniacs. It appears at first sight to be an open game where anything goes and you can impose your will. Some people receiving their first revert get angry. Not helped of course by (a) the lack of advertising that Wikipedia is not a place to just get your own way and (b) some of our less-than friendly "experienced editors" who specialise in abrupt put-downs when reverting casual toe-testing of the system. Some go on to become obsessives. Not to mention of course a whole new legion of people who, realising the built-in high ranking that Google bestows on the humblest Wiki-entry, are determined to game the system to promote their band/product/idea/company/person/racist view or whatever. Whatever else, we're going to need more admins! But I do think that the public message about Wikipedia is wrong. The idea abroad that it's all nonsense, that anyone can say anything, etc, has to be changed somehow. More rigor. More exclusion of, frankly, nutjobs with an axe to grind. Getting tougher with long-running editors who are acting aggressive or smart-arsed with newbies. More admins. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Need is a tricky thing. It wouldn't surprise me if Jimbo's original concept hasn't quite been realized by what Wikipedia has become. So, the definition of what we need might well depend on defining what Wikipedia actually is...and I think the problem is that with so many editors, there is no single answer to that question. And yes, there are blowhards everywhere you look...Wikipedia neither breeds nor especially attracts them, in my view...they literally are everywhere. :-) As for the specific LZ question, well, it amuses me, is all. It seems almost a given that any artist that popular (and I really mean popular here, not notable) will have multiple tags attached to their genre. It's a natural consequence of the passage of time. Why some editors find it good sport or serious bizness to quarrel over it is beyond me. Frank | talk 14:18, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the en-GB. Isn't that just a reflection of the fact that LZ were to some extent a cross-genre band? Can't see much of a problem with the current position of having multiple genres in the infobox, but I suppose there are bound to be blowhards who get all dogmatic about them being a metal band or whatever. As always it comes down to the perennial problem of wikipedia's basic structure, that of which expert to pick in cases where there are a bazillion sources to justify any given position. Articles should just give all the positions and then the battle moves on to what weight to give each. They went through these things on Brittanica too, but it was conducted through gentlemanly correspondence at a slow pace with a Supervising Subject Editor. I think we need some of the latter in wikiworld too. Admins are about behaviour, not content. We need trained, impartial, clever, well-balanced but above all knowledgeable content adjudicators. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Gobbleswoggler
Hi Frank, I appreciate your comments to my light hearted message to Gobbleswoggler. Nobody has done more to help this kid out of his misery than I have, It wasn't my intention to make a mockery out of the excellent work that some admins do. However, just for the record, there are some admins who regularly abuse their privileges - I have been the victim of such direct abuse, but of course there was nothing I could do about it.--Kudpung (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think Gobbles would take that as "lighthearted". (I know I didn't, and I have far better ability to discern what's being said online than Gobbles does.) But it isn't all that important; I am sorry if you'd had that experience with one or more admins. Admins don't usually take away talk page access unless there's a really good reason. There are, however, usually things that can be done; for example, see WP:ARBCOM. Frank | talk 15:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm interested in your comment about being the victim of such "direct abuse"; I don't see any blocks in your log. How were you in this situation? Frank | talk 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)h
- I did what Wikipedia recommends we do in such situations: took the teenage admin's threats of punitive blocking and licked his boots in the manner demanded, for the person who was actually guilty of gaming the system (another teenage sysop), and walked away letting them think they had all won the day. That vile child is a user of some of the most obscene langue I've eve seen on the site, and a vandal. So you can see now why I have a justifiably negative opinion of people who get the bit with little experience and/or reduced maturity. I actually take a far deeper and active interest in the problems surrounding the admin selection process than you might have thought. Until people started humiliating me recently just because I make intelligent votes the other way, my reputation was as clean as a whistle - unlike some who swear by God that they have never been involved in a dispute, but in fact go out of their way to be uncivil. There are no blocks on my account and there almost certainly probably never will be. Something to do with maturity perhaps, and being a grandfather of near teenage grandchildren.--Kudpung (talk) 11:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Fight The Fade - Notability
Please don't remove any templates without first discussing why it should be removed.
The last thing we all want is to remove an article that merits to be on Wikipedia. That said, please come to Fight The Fade's talk page and tell us why Fight The Fade should stay in Wikipedia.
Remember that the argument needs to address the points in WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles.
Thanks, and I look forward to seeing your points for why Fight The Fade should be kept! :)
-- ℐℴℯℓ ℳ. ℂℌAT ✐ 15:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please see WP:CSD, which explains how speedy deletion works and why Fight The Fade is no longer a candidate for CSD. Further info at Talk:Fight The Fade. Frank | talk 15:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
RE: Comment
Hi, I was referring to the oppose and misplaced it. Esteffect (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thought so; thanks for the confirmation. Frank | talk 02:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikistalk check
On a recent RfA, you said you did a "Wikistalk check" to check interaction between the candidate and your own account. Can you tell me how exactly you did that? Is there a toolserver program or a script available? Thanks. SnottyWong chatter 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here it is. "Interaction" is perhaps a strong word; it merely notes pages that two or more accounts have
botheach edited. Frank | talk 18:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perfect, thanks! SnottyWong prattle 01:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
RfA
Your other work here is impeccable. I am not a teacher's creep and I have no intention of embarrasing you by engaging valuable admin time at WP:ANI, WP:DR, or WP:RFC or ARBCOM. I simply hope that this episode will encourage you to reflect upon your own sincerity as a sysop. I will not be watching this page for a reply.--Kudpung (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I understand you said you're not watching, but my reply is this: my sincerity never depends on my being a sysop; rather my being an admin depends on my sincerity. I know of no incident that would embarrass me, and as I said on your talk page, would welcome constructive criticism here (or anywhere) if there is really something to complain about. That doesn't mean I'm perfect, either as an editor or as an admin. But as I've pointed out elsewhere, the assumption of a belly button is a pretty good one.
- And again - although you might not be watching, as a followup, I looked through some of our past contributions (not yours - our joint edited pages). I wanted to see if you had some specific prior interaction with me that would be construed negatively. I couldn't find one (doesn't mean it isn't there) but I did find we agree more than not in the few RfAs I could find that we both opined in. For what it's worth. Sorry if you think I have some axe to grind; the truth is I disagreed with a comment you made and said something about it. Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing personal. Frank | talk 22:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
- I hope you've noticed now that after 16 more 'Opposes' I seem to have been on the right track after all. Perhaps my error was in being to early to voice my opinion. On the other hand, If I had spoken later, you would probably have criticised me for following the rabble. I think we need to add something to the RfA guideline to the effect that voters should give reasons for their vote, stay on track, criticice the candidate (even harshly if need be), and not each other.--Kudpung (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am continuing to follow Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GorillaWarfare; I hope you notice that I didn't re-open our conversation when you responded to my note at what is currently oppose #27. I continue to support this candidate and I am not a big fan of "might makes right". A majority of the opposes seem focused on "lacks <something>" rather than any actual note about something the candidate has done incorrectly or otherwise detrimental to the encyclopedia. On the other hand, most of the supports seem to focus on specific things the candidate has done, and many also acknowledge that the candidate is not perfect. All are entitled to their opinions - you included - but I remain unconvinced that "me too" opposes are any better than the "me too" supports you've complained about. And: the notion that you have committed an "error" is your construct, not mine; I didn't suggest that and I don't agree with it. I may disagree with your oppose rationale, but that doesn't mean you made an error in expressing your opinion - early, late, or in the middle. That's what discussion is for - discussing. Frank | talk 01:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- In case you hadn't noticed, my votes on RfA are never 'as per' or 'me too' (at least not without further qualification). I actually spend up to an hour sometimes researching and making up my mind. and in the GorillaWarfare battle my 'oppose' was based on something she did wrong - several times, without the slightest attempt to rectify matters. I don't doubt however, that once she has found her feet she will make quite a good admin - she does not appear to be naturally disposed to being snarky or arrogant, although these are qualities that alas too many admins later adopt. It seems to me however that you are indeed a "might makes right" !voter after all. GW got through by the skin of her teeth and a closing by a crat who may possibly have been involved in a COI issue. It was indeed an extremely controversial RfA 'discussion', as was his attempt to justify his decision, as the aftermath across the board has shown. Anyway, at least as an admin you continue to take an interest in the process that got you there - most admins don't bother once they have got the bit. Let's just admit the admin selection system is totally kaputt and some admins (and non admins) are doing an excellent job in trying to repair it. There are also a couple of interesting developments on the subject at Wikimedia if you are interested.--Kudpung (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you think I subscribe to the "might makes right" school of thought here ("after all"), nor why you are suggesting a COI issue with the bureaucrat who closed the RfA. (It was closed correctly, in my view.) I'm also unaware of the "aftermath across the board" you refer to. I definitely will not "admit the admin selection system is totally kaputt", as you put it. I would like to see term limits for all admins - current ones included but I'm unsure how we'd reconfirm in such a circumstance, because admins draw enmity in varying degrees. Even so, the suggestion of limits doesn't automatically imply the selection process is flawed; I think the project is doing fine considering there are so many chiefs (not just admins). Frank | talk 15:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
- I see you've just got another string to your bow. If it's considered a promotion, congratulations. If it's no big deal, never mind. BTW: I have to admit that I totally failed to follow up on your link to WP:APBB - yes, well, it's what I was doing really, although I must admit I tend to answer snarkiness with snarkiness, especially when it comes from admins, for whom, as a class of editors, I do try to consider them as being superior in comportment to the rest of the rabble. I also closely follow the RfA talk page, and although it appears that we will always agree to disagree on a couple of points, I for my part will try to do it as pleasantly as possible in the future. Regards--Kudpung (talk) 04:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if you are saying I've been snarky or complimenting me for not being so; I hope it's the latter but would appreciate pointers if it's the former. As for superior comportment, well, my own experience is that there are all kinds around here - admin and not, bureaucrat and not, and everywhere in between. Some folks have a better demeanor than others; simple as that. I try to be in the "easy to get along with" group myself. It's up to others to judge for themselves whether or not I am successful. Frank | talk 14:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Au Pair Series (film)
Hello from Spain, could you write the article Au Pair (film) in spanish wikipedia, thanks. 18:43 16 ago 2010 (Spain). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.198.106 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I can't help you; my knowledge of Spanish is far too meager for that. Frank | talk 16:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
WPS redirects unappropiated
The page WiFi Positioning System (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wi-Fi_Positioning_System&redirect=no) redirects to here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_Wireless, a commercial company). WPS is a technology proposed some years ago, and being used by SkyHook Wireless. I would suggest to use the page of WPS for the WPS technology itself, and not as a redirector to Skyhook
PS: I'm still a newbie, so sorry if my message shouldn't be posted here (and I would be very pleasant if you can tell me the right place:)Kikoso (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- It sounds like you may be right. If you edit Wi-Fi Positioning System yourself and remove the redirect, we can get started on a real article. Keep in mind WP:V and WP:CITE, and if you need any help, let me know. Frank | talk 19:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
- Done. I'll begin with the article ASAP :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kikoso (talk • contribs) 09:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Sorensen Institute
I am an agent of the copy right holder for all things related to the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership. Please let me know what I can do to restore our article. Bmh8n (talk) 19:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)